Standing up to a school bully

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Here we have a kid who was trained to fight, and suprise suprise, that is how he solved a conflict. Imagine if the kid had trained as hard at diplomacy, or humor, or theology. I suppose his response would have been different. To me it is interesting that you have a “bully” who’s mouth probably got him in trouble and backed him into a situation where he had to put up or shut up against a tougher kid. But what about the weak, what about those who are not trained in boxing, who are not big enough to break a bully’s nose, what about those who get their nose broke in the same situation.
Where is the moral line? Is it all organic? Do both kids HAVE to only use their clenched fists? What if someone brings brass knuckles? Can the other kid bring a knife? And if a knife what about a gun? What if the OP’s son had sustained injuries that put him in the hospital? Would it have been a great idea then? Or would the son be a failure as a person and disappointed the proud papa?

Imagine, for a moment that the OP is not an atheist. Imagine that the son comes home and tells papa that a kid is picking on him at school and then the OP’s son, using his theological training says: “Dad, this kid needs Jesus. This kid needs help.” So they invite him to youth group. Of course the bully probably laughs this off. But what if the parents go over to the bully’s house and ask for just one hour, just one hour of time of the bully’s life and they sit in front of the Blessed Sacrament? Imagine, the OP, evangelizing and helping this bully.

Or just imagine the bully with a broken nose after being challenged to a premeditated fight after school?

Sounds like the Op’s son has been training in the wrong art.

 

[Della]

Yes, it was planned. He challenged the other boy to a fight. He trained to fight.

Then he broke the kid’s nose.

In other words, he planned the attack and went through with it.

I would have no problem, if the bully had pushed/shoved/hit/whatever the OP’s son, and the son, hauled off and decked the bully.

Heck, I still tell a story of when my own sister laid out a bully, for me. The bully ended up with stitches. It was great. He never bothered us again. But she hit him, when he started attacking, not before.

But what you are saying, is that the OP’s son is effectively a battered wife. That even when the bully is not a threat, it is okay to retaliate. I see that as wrong.

As I wrote before, a trained boxer only inflicts as much damage as is necessary. The other kid probably put his face in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Constant verbal abuse is the same thing as hitting another person and can and has led to terrible consequences including suicide

This wasn’t a one off deal in which some kid said some nasty thing and the other kid challenged him to fight. It was an ongoing situation that needed resolving. As I’ve also already stated in other posts, it would have been better handled by the parents. The OP should have contacted the bully’s parents and told them the situation. If they were decent people they’d have stopped it themselves. That’s the mistake I see here, not that a bully got challenged to a fight after relentlessly hounding another kid and got a broken nose for his efforts.

It would have been another matter if the OP’s kid had ambushed the bully, but that’s not the case. The bully went into the fight willing. He got bested. Lesson learned, it is to be hoped.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Lesson learned, it is to be hoped.

What lesson was learned. As long as you are trained to fight you can beat up a bully?
There could have been so many better lessons learned. I also take issue with your assertion that a trained boxer will only use the force necessary. Mike Tyson is a trained boxer. Someone is missing an ear. Someone else was raped. You have no idea the OP son’s training. The only thing we do know is he has been trained to hit hard in the face, hard enough to break another human. And that is how he solved a conflict. That is what we do know.

I have trained in boxing, I was a in a boxing club in college. I was trained in Kempo Karate, I have been trained in firearms and self defense. To defend, my life, my family, or an innocent I am prepared and have in the past used my training. I have also almost been killed when a weapon I attempted to use against a home intruder was turned on me. I have had a knife to my throat by a bully who wanted to fight me and broke into my house when my parents were out, I pulled out a hunting knife and he rushed me, I, at 16, had a split second decision, kill him or pull away. I pulled away, the knife was at my throat in a matter of seconds. A neighbor saved my life. The bully committed suicide 2 months later.

It was then I learned several things about fighting and self defense. If you pull out a weapon, you had better use it.

There are times when fighting is a good, Holy, option. This situation is not one of them. Challenging another boy to a fight and breaking his nose so bad that he has medical bills is not a way to become holy. And that is the ultimate standard of what we should be teaching our kids and our society. And on a Catholic site, this is even more paramount.

 

[Della]

What lesson was learned. As long as you are trained to fight you can beat up a bully?
There could have been so many better lessons learned. I also take issue with your assertion that a trained boxer will only use the force necessary. Mike Tyson is a trained boxer. Someone is missing an ear. Someone else was raped. You have no idea the OP son’s training. The only thing we do know is he has been trained to hit hard in the face, hard enough to break another human. And that is how he solved a conflict. That is what we do know.

I have trained in boxing, I was a in a boxing club in college. I was trained in Kempo Karate, I have been trained in firearms and self defense. To defend, my life, my family, or an innocent I am prepared and have in the past used my training. I have also almost been killed when a weapon I attempted to use against a home intruder was turned on me. I have had a knife to my throat by a bully who wanted to fight me and broke into my house when my parents were out, I pulled out a hunting knife and he rushed me, I, at 16, had a split second decision, kill him or pull away. I pulled away, the knife was at my throat in a matter of seconds. A neighbor saved my life. The bully committed suicide 2 months later.

It was then I learned several things about fighting and self defense. If you pull out a weapon, you had better use it.

There are times when fighting is a good, Holy, option. This situation is not one of them. Challenging another boy to a fight and breaking his nose so bad that he has medical bills is not a way to become holy. And that is the ultimate standard of what we should be teaching our kids and our society. And on a Catholic site, this is even more paramount.

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. I’ve stated what I think of the incident and what I think should have been done, and that’s all I’m going to say. I don’t have the time or interest in going around and around about it. I stand by my statements and now I shall bow out.

 

[Sunbreak]

I’m with the original poster on this one. I think many times the old school punch them in the nose tactic to stop the bully is what the bully understands. It has worked for many years and still works. That doesn’t mean you go around punching someone at the slightest provocation but when there’s an ongoing problem it might be the only way.

 

[new_atheist]

G’day again. I want to clarify things about what happened to the bullying that my son experienced. The incidents only got worse in a month’s time (the harassment was subtle at first) but turned to overt hostility. It started as taunts and sabotaging his homework but the final straw was when he was shoved against his locker and he finally decided that enough is enough. He challenged the kid to a showdown and invited the other students who witnessed the incident to watch. According to him, the boy was clumsy and wasn’t able to land a punch at him (my son was good in bobbing and weaving) . He delivered a counterpunch to his face and body which knocked him off his senses. He reckoned that it lasted for less than a minute. Seeing that the kid was down, he went over to check him out amidst the cheers of the other kids (they were pushing him to continue the fight). It was news the following day and I got a call from the principal’s office and had to excuse myself from work that day.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

He challenged the kid to a showdown and invited the other students who witnessed the incident to watch.

This is problematic for me.
It sounds less and less like a “bullying” incident and more and more like two boys fighting.

 

[cargau]

This is problematic for me.
It sounds less and less like a “bullying” incident and more and more like two boys fighting.

When I was in eighth grade there was a boy who was shooting paper clips with a rubber band at the girls’ legs. It was a Catholic school and the girls wore uniforms so their legs were not covered.

Any way, I told the kid to knock it off. He wouldn’t so, in justice, we needed to settle this. It was a Friday and we agreed to convene Saturday morning for a fight. I made it a point to invite my friend so that there was a witness.

The next morning my friend and I arrived at the school parking lot. We waited 15 minutes and the other guy never showed. I was thankful for that since he was much bigger than me. I said to my friend Pat, “let’s go”. I was relieved that I had a witness to say that I was there and he never showed. Pat said give it five more minutes. I said, “OK”. I looked down the street and “here he comes”…

We sparred a bit, traded a few glancing blows and called it a draw. It wasn’t so much about winning or losing a fight as it was about drawing a line in the sand. The kid never shot those paper clips at anyone after that.

I could be wrong, but I think most young ladies want to marry a man who isn’t afraid to draw a line in the sand. Not every incident can be negotiated away or compromised on.
Sometimes you have to fight for what is right and sometimes it can get bloody, yes even a broken nose now and then…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

When I was in eighth grade there was a boy who was shooting paper clips with a rubber band at the girls’ legs. It was a Catholic school and the girls wore uniforms so their legs were not covered.

Any way, I told the kid to knock it off. He wouldn’t so, in justice, we needed to settle this. It was a Friday and we agreed to convene Saturday morning for a fight. I made it a point to invite my friend so that there was a witness.

The next morning my friend and I arrived at the school parking lot. We waited 15 minutes and the other guy never showed. I was thankful for that since he was much bigger than me. I said to my friend Pat, “let’s go”. I was relieved that I had a witness to say that I was there and he never showed. Pat said give it five more minutes. I said, “OK”. I looked down the street and “here he comes”…

We sparred a bit, traded a few glancing blows and called it a draw. It wasn’t so much about winning or losing a fight as it was about drawing a line in the sand. The kid never shot those paper clips at anyone after that.

I could be wrong, but I think most young ladies want to marry a man who isn’t afraid to draw a line in the sand. Not every incident can be negotiated away or compromised on.
Sometimes you have to fight for what is right and sometimes it can get bloody, yes even a broken nose now and then…

ok

 

[agnes_therese]

If he had broken the other boy’s nose in a fight the other boy started (i.e., in self-defense), that would be one thing.

But to start it himself by challenging the bully to a fight? And then you condone it?

No. That’s not right. You’re teaching your son that violence is the only answer.

 

[new_atheist]

Hmm, I don’t think you guys get it, do you? Just read again. This didn’t happen spontaneously. As I said, this other kid was harassing my son for a long time - and for no reason at all. What do you call that then if its not bullying? I do not condone what he did, but do you condone the other kid who pushed him against his locker and was sabotaging his homework and even making fun of him in front of the other kids (while he was just minding his own business). Should he just let it go like that? His teacher has been turning a blind eye even though my son had reported it. He transferred to a different school last year to join me in the state where I worked. He’s a good boy and he knows the limitations of his actions (ironically, he’s also an altar boy) but he won’t take any of this nonsense any longer. After the smoke had cleared, he didn’t feel isolated and he gained friends. The other kid didn’t bother him again (he transferred to a different school). I did the same thing when I was also bullied in school (that’s a different story) and since then, I was able to look up and feel more confident. Standing up for your rights is important but not doing anything to protect your dignity is another. Just as the other forumers had said, bullied kids also take their lives if the pressure is to much for them to bear. They suffer from low self-esteem and will carry this mental trauma even as adults. We have to be pragmatic sometimes.

 

[cargau]

If he had broken the other boy’s nose in a fight the other boy started (i.e., in self-defense), that would be one thing.

But to start it himself by challenging the bully to a fight? And then you condone it?

No. That’s not right. You’re teaching your son that violence is the only answer.

Self defense does not only pertain to imminent physical harm, but psychological and emotional, as well. This was absolutely self defense.

And preventing the boy from defending himself is a form of child abuse.

 

[maryjk]

Hmm, I don’t think you guys get it, do you? Just read again. This didn’t happen spontaneously.

And if it had been spontaneous, it would have been self defense. Since it was a planned event, it was simply one kid beating up on another.

As I said, this other kid was harassing my son for a long time - and for no reason at all. What do you call that then if its not bullying? I do not condone what he did, but do you condone the other kid who pushed him against his locker and was sabotaging his homework and even making fun of him in front of the other kids (while he was just minding his own business).

With the exception of pushing him into a locker, I call this teasing.

Should he just let it go like that? His teacher has been turning a blind eye even though my son had reported it. He transferred to a different school last year to join me in the state where I worked. He’s a good boy and he knows the limitations of his actions (ironically, he’s also an altar boy) but he won’t take any of this nonsense any longer.

It could be that the teacher also saw what was happening and figured it was teasing.

After the smoke had cleared, he didn’t feel isolated and he gained friends. The other kid didn’t bother him again (he transferred to a different school). I did the same thing when I was also bullied in school (that’s a different story) and since then, I was able to look up and feel more confident.

Could be his “new friends” are simply afraid of him. Now they know that if you say the wrong thing to your son, he might challenge you to a fight. And you too could end up with a broken body part.

Standing up for your rights is important but not doing anything to protect your dignity is another. Just as the other forumers had said, bullied kids also take their lives if the pressure is to much for them to bear. They suffer from low self-esteem and will carry this mental trauma even as adults. We have to be pragmatic sometimes.

Which is why I agree that bullied kids should be able to fight back. When this bully shoved your son, your son should have flattened the bully. The problem I see is that instead of your son’s actions being self defense, he was just part of two boys fighting.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Self defense does not only pertain to imminent physical harm, but psychological and emotional, as well. This was absolutely self defense.

And preventing the boy from defending himself is a form of child abuse.

And preventing the boy from defending himself is a form of child abuse

Now I think you are being a tad dramatic. Perhaps you could argue this from a Catholic perspective. And do you have any comments on the “feminine” issue I addressed earlier?

 

[cargau]

Now I think you are being a tad dramatic. Perhaps you could argue this from a Catholic perspective. And do you have any comments on the “feminine” issue I addressed earlier?

The Catechism deals with self defense as a moral matter usually dealing with killing the aggressor who seeks to harm. One could swap out the words dealing with the “taking of life” with injure. I copied and pasted a few articles from the CCC below.

As far as the feminine issue is concerned, I replied to that several posts ago. If you would like further clarification, let me know.

As far as the child abuse is concerned, I would submit that such an observation is not intended to be overly dramatic. To me, it is like binding his arms and legs and casting him into the lake. He is kept from using his arms and legs to save himself.

*The quotation is from # 2265 in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. - *

And…

*There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself ” (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. - *

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The Catechism deals with self defense as a moral matter usually dealing with killing the aggressor who seeks to harm. One could swap out the words dealing with the “taking of life” with injure. I copied and pasted a few articles from the CCC below.

As far as the feminine issue is concerned, I replied to that several posts ago. If you would like further clarification, let me know.

As far as the child abuse is concerned, I would submit that such an observation is not intended to be overly dramatic. To me, it is like binding his arms and legs and casting him into the lake. He is kept from using his arms and legs to save himself.

*The quotation is from # 2265 in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. - *

And…

*There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself ” (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. - *

Interesting. Though in 2262

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

This “challenge” seems to be the issue here. Self defense cannot be argued for this situation. It would not hold up in a court of law in the US, nor would it be applied to the “killing” of someone for just reasons.
What this was, was a “jerk” a bully, who got put in his place and made the fool. The outcome is one we all revel in a little, but it is not the way it had to be handled.
Again, I think the child abuse is when you train a youth to fight and look the other way when he uses his training in front of an audience he invited to a “duel” in the schoolyard. The OPs son should be trained in diplomacy, humor and theology. Because in the real world people go to jail for settling things this way as adults. And honestly, if you have seen any school shooting news recently, encouraging violence as the “manly” option here is quite possible life endangering, which is the ultimate child abuse if you ask me.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

As far as the feminine issue is concerned, I replied to that several posts ago. If you would like further clarification, let me know

I responded to your post in post number 29:

I don’t know how old you are but your perception of women seems off to me. In the older days, women ran schools. Heck, nuns ran hospitals and schools. It is only recently that more men are becoming involved in elementary education. And where policies are made, at the district and governmental levels, it is heavily slanted to the male persuasion. Look up your school board. Dollars to donuts it is more men than women. There are 13,728 superintendents in the nation 1,984 are women. That is 14%. And guess how many women are in the classroom k-12? 72%!!! The administrators (read men) make up the rules here. The women, (teachers) have to abide by the pathetic incompetence of a broken system. Perhaps more women, those who spend their time directly with the young boys and girls should be given a more prominent role. Or would that offend the way you think genders are “wired?”
Quote:
This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when I see zero tolerance for “violence” when a boy is bullied and responds by standing up for himself, I shudder. This is like mom saying “now, play nice”. But guys aren’t necessarily wired this way.
You have got to be kidding me! Guys are not wired by having a zero tolerance for violence!?
Have you met Jesus? Ghandi? MLK?
While Jesus and MLK may not be zero tolerance apparently they advocate for the “feminine” virtue that men are just not “wired” for. Talk about sexism!

Our LADY Queen of Peace pray for us!
PRINCE of Peace, lead, and forgive us!

I may have missed your response to this. This is what I seek clarification on.

 

[Catholic1954]

G’day. I have a teenage son who was bullied in school for a month. One day, he challenged this other boy to a fight after school (he trained in boxing) and he ended up breaking this bully’s nose. I was called up to the principal’s office along with the boy’s parents and both of them got suspended. I ended paying for that boy’s fractured nose. I didn’t scold my son (in fact I felt proud) about that incident and was I quietly applauding him for standing up for himself. Since then, he was left alone and no one bothered him since then. Was I right in condoning his behaviour? When I was growing up in grade school and high school, school bullying was something that happened in the shadows and which the school authorities refused to acknowledge. It was only when young kids started taking their lives (due to being bullied - even online) did education authorities had a wake-up call.

You did not really condone his behavior; you supported your son when he stood up and defended himself against a bully. If you are having second thoughts, you might have your son pay back half of what you had to pay for the broken nose. Bullys need to be stopped, the sooner the better for all.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think I am going to take a cue from Della and step away for a time. I think both positions have been explained to my satisfaction. I stand by my arguments from a Christian perspective and I feel good about my expression. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

Sometimes I surprise myself with what my relationship with Christ has lead me to. Me, a former football player, rodeo cowboy, arguing for the Prince of Peace.

I must admit I feel the need to watch a good old John Wayne Movie later on today to get my manhood back. I’m thinking “the cowboys” Though I am partial to “El Dorado”

High vengance in both of those movies.

 

[cargau]

Interesting. Though in 2262

This “challenge” seems to be the issue here. Self defense cannot be argued for this situation. It would not hold up in a court of law in the US, nor would it be applied to the “killing” of someone for just reasons.
What this was, was a “jerk” a bully, who got put in his place and made the fool. The outcome is one we all revel in a little, but it is not the way it had to be handled.
Again, I think the child abuse is when you train a youth to fight and look the other way when he uses his training in front of an audience he invited to a “duel” in the schoolyard. The OPs son should be trained in diplomacy, humor and theology. Because in the real world people go to jail for settling things this way as adults. And honestly, if you have seen any school shooting news recently, encouraging violence as the “manly” option here is quite possible life endangering, which is the ultimate child abuse if you ask me.

According to comments made by the OP, the boy tried less violent methods of relating to the bully before resorting to violence. I quite agree with you that parents should help their children become adept at using diplomacy, humor or even an appeal to his faith as ways to stop the bully before even considering violence. Fighting should be a last resort, but it should never be removed as an option.

Now, we weren’t there to see exactly how well this young man performed these tactics, but for the sake of discussion, let’s say he did do them as well as he could given his age and lack of experience. Will you then concede that perhaps taking the matter to the parking lot would be a justifiable form of self defense from emotional abuse and trauma.

Not trying to get overly dramatic here, but bullying has really gotten out of hand and the victims and their families really suffer because of it. Child and adolescent psychology clinics and hospitals are busting at the seam. We do our kids a great disservice when we prevent them from defending themselves.